Life & Alchemy

New member here - been reading many of the intriguing threads on this forum for most of the evening and feel compelled, almost obligated to sign on and join in. I spend a lot of energy seeking individuals in my leisure time who share similar intellectual interests - most being few and far between. Finding this site feels like a great door just opened before me. I've read many of the threads here regarding the "Origin of Life" - lots of replies offering up info on various theories and lab experiements, etc.. Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be any solid explanations to this question. However, I wanted to pose a thought, consider it my first venture here of getting my feet wet.There are really only two fundamental perspectives one can take to answer the question. Either 1) Creationism, or 2) Natural Process. If one makes up their mind that a "god" supplied option #1, that is a choice to leave science, logic, reason, etc. at the door. Perspective #2 is the obvious approach to understanding the process by way of specific natural mechanisms. But the essence in questioning the origin of life is a matter of whether one believes that life arose from natural processes or that it was just stamped into existece by a creator along some miraculous timeline.Perhaps right now there aren't any good explanations as to how exactly the chemistry came together giving rise to life - It is an incredibly difficult mechanism to try and get one's head around. On the same token though, understanding the mechanism of how a star composed of the simplest form of matter can grow it into more and more complex forms of matter is the perfect illustration of the creative natural processes that exist within the stuff of everything. We are positive that life is here and there were natural processes at work giving rise to it - no different an understanding from recognizing the natural processes that allow stars the mind-boggling feat of literally alchemizing substance.The first "life" structure coming about was a step in the process of change the universe underwent at a point in time long ago and continued to change. Whether there is any intelligence behind the construct of the universe is irrelevant - one can choose to believe there is an intelligent designer/pilot or not and it doesn't change how things work or how things are. The universe is what it is and the natural laws which govern its processes can be understood. The natural laws that exist today are the same natural laws that have and always will be a part of this universe - she doesn't make exceptions, never has, never will. We obviously dont have all of the information at the moment to know the exact steps that led to life, but the chemical processes that were involved aren't beyond understanding. In this view, to believe life arose in any other way means throwing simple, basic reasoning out the window.Just to clarify though - the aforementioned "thoughts" are just a perspective but it seems pretty compelling after compiling it into words. Any flukes with this thinking?

The universe does not seem to be infinite. There is actually a limit to how far out things "appear to exist" in our universe.Observable universe - WikipediaMy original post was hoping to prompt conversation on origins of life tho. :-/

Thankyou, Percy!The various subjects this forum entertains are almost all one in the same - only slight variations in the essence of dialogue. I wouldn't worry too much about trying to specifically classify this post at the moment - too vague right now. Since I haven't seen any objection to my original post thus far, perhaps I'll take that one step further and see if it would be acceptable..If one subscribes to the concept that everything behaves according to natural law, what does that say for the concept of free-will? If everything behaves according to a fixed set of action-reaction script, wouldn't that mean that we too are confined to these bounds?Perhaps this is the very conundrum people grapple with? If it isn't creationism, then it is chemistry, which means everything is just an elaborate, prediatable machine. On the other hand, if it is creationism, then we aren't necessarily bound to strict cause-effect relationships.But what about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? This principle shows that even if you try to understand the operation of matter at its fundamental particles, say, in an attempt to predict future events, there lay a limit to knowing all of the information necessary for predicting an outcome. Perhaps this uncertainty itself is what provides us free-will? Edited by AshsZ, : No reason given.